zombiefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Differences Between Surviving Fast and Slow Zombies
Re-working A note to the original author. It is obvious you put alot of time and thought into this article, and for that I applaud you. This is exactly the sort of article I feel we need. However, there are alot inconsistencies between your claims, and facts from both Brooks' works, and movies with Fast Zombies. I am going to redo the whole thing, preserving sections of your work where I can. Please do not take this as an attack or disrepect to your original work. If you'd like to discuss certain issues of the article, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. - Philodox 20:34, January 13, 2010 (UTC) Biased Information This article is very well written concerning "Slow Zombies", but is also very biased toward them. The assumption that "Fast Zombies" will expire much faster than their slow counterparts is far too prevalent in this article. The ONLY point of reference where Fast Zombies were dying out due to lack of sustenance is in 28 Days Later. This article requires more research into the fast classification of zombies. Specifically regarding the fact that it is assumed that they have such a short shelf life after infection completely sets in. ~Centium June 18, 2011 :Bias is always something we want to avoid at Zombiepedia. In this case, it may be difficult, considering (in my experience reading, and watching interviews of prominent people in film-making) about half of dedicated fans of zombie films believe that fast zombies/infected should not be truly counted as zombies. Having said that, I own, and enjoy Zombieland, Zac Snyder's Dawn of the Dead, Quarrantine and Left 4 Dead. If there are more notable and well recognized works that showcase fast zombies, by all means, please suggest them. But in all of these works I've mentioned, gunshot wounds to the chest do effectively kill these fast zombies. Even though they all have lost their sense of pain, their locomotion is dependant upon the same complex biological system of organs, blood, food and water as most other life on earth. This is evidence that most prominent depictions of fast zombies are not undead, but still alive, and still capable of perishing to lack of food or water. :Romero has said that his zombies do not even draw energy or nutrients when they devour flesh - it is simply what they do, for no discernable reason. Brooks has said likewise, and also that the very flesh of his zombies is so toxic, they do not truly decompose because all life that assists in the decomposition process is immediately poisoned if they try to consume zombie flesh. Still, they have no aspect of self maintenance or preservation, even on a cellular level. They take 5-20 years to break down, depending on their environment. My point is that major works reflecting slow zombies make it clear - it's (relatively) not difficult to kill one slow zombie. But that isn't their strength - they are less of an army, and more of a flood. One that will not receed, so if you become hunkered down, they will simply wait you out. Because they are clearly supernatural, they are more durable than any foe they encounter. Fast Zombies are beserk attackers, enraged and infected by something that will eventually kill them. While this is only outright said in one of the few defining films of their sub-genre, it seems like those other works have reached a sort of consensus, cemented by the fact that the films themselves refuse to address these topics. :Summing things up, my point is that I am aware of no prominent, intelligent zombie film that shows a decomposing fast zombie. Sure, they are all sick, or horrifically wounded, but "infected" implies "alive" which is dramatically less durable than "undead", which can still keep pursuing their prey after decapitation. If such a counter example exists, please present it. : — [[User:Philodox|'<<— ''Philodox —>>''']] talk 00:42, June 19, 2011 (UTC)